Monday, March 19, 2012

Backlash has been strong against a new N.C. billboard law that could cost the state tens of thousands of trees. The 2011 law, which went into effect March 1, allows for a wider swath of trees to be cut around billboards, and it transfers control over the trees from cities and town to the N.C. Department of Transportation. It was written with help from the outdoor advertising industry.

We've said the law is a bad idea and encouraged lawmakers and N.C. DOT to find a better balance between business, beauty and local control as they work through the process of making permanent rules for the law's application.

The Observer reported last week that Charlotte's Adams Outdoor has submitted 21 applications with the state to remove hundreds of trees in the city. Kevin Madrzykowski, General Manager of Charlotte's Adams Outdoor Advertising, responds to criticism of the law in an op-ed that will appear in tomorrow's print Observer.

From Madrzykowski:

Senate Bill 183 was approved in the House and Senate with overwhelming Republican and Democratic support. The result is, without question, a bipartisan statute.

It is the responsibility of legislators, especially in challenged economic times, to support legislation that fosters economic development and job creation, at the same time balancing the impact such legislation has on the environment, quality of life, and a constructive business climate. It’s also their responsibility to intervene when overly restrictive regulations threaten to put people out of work and an industry out of business. That is exactly the situation the Outdoor Advertising Industry finds itself.

When our signs were permitted and built, clear visibility existed. That is no longer the case as subsequent vegetation removal regulations have been put into effect by municipalities and the NCDOT. Until SB183, which only pertains to NCDOT Right of Way, the industry and Adams were required to conform to both municipality and NCDOT regulations. This duality created an environment where we could not maintain our assets properly.

As the Charlotte arborist acknowledged, contradiction existed between State and city regulation resulting in a scenario where we could remove little to no vegetation on property under NCDOT’s jurisdiction. These are vegetation concerns that did not exist when the billboards were originally constructed.

For a business that survives by providing advertisers exposure on high-trafficked roadways, visibility is a must. It’s not a stretch to construe this contradiction as a means to put us out of business. With record levels of unemployment, putting additional jobs at risk is criminal.

Who is Adams Outdoor? Adams is the premier provider of outdoor advertising in Charlotte, locally headquartered and employs over 65 people; Adams is our livelihood.

Adams also partners with over 715 landowners from whom we lease property. These property owners rely on income from the billboard structures to pay their bills, support their families . . . . and enjoy their basic property rights.

Further, Adams works with more than 470 advertisers striving to grow their businesses and achieve the best return for their advertising dollar. For many outdoor advertising is the foundation of their media strategy and integral to driving potential customers to their business.

Finally, Adams is privileged to annually contribute over $1.5 million in advertising space to local non-profit organizations, community interest causes, schools, and municipalities. Additionally, many employees have selflessly donated their time volunteering with these organizations. We do this because it’s the right thing to do.

This legislation is not about trees vs. billboards. It’s not about pushing the envelope in regard to the environment and asking for extremes. In fact, it’s not even about protecting visibility that existed when the billboards were first constructed. This legislation is about doing what is fair, right and reasonable, rather than requiring that a legitimate, viable, giving company go out of business.

It is about supporting a business that cares deeply for this community so that it can continue to exist and do good.

70
comments:

Anonymous
said...

It is not just about trees vs. billboards. It is also about the people who were elected to represent North Carolinians selling out to the people with money to contribute to their re-election campaigns.

Perhaps the property owners can take advantage of their basic rights and do the cutting themselves -- if they are being paid for use of their land, they should be responsible for making sure it is useful to the company paying the lease.

That is a pretty good letter right there. And I appreciate the context that was provided. Conflicting laws/policies between the city and state made it essentially impossible to maintain adequate visibility of existing signs because trees grow larger over time. Good point.

That is a pretty good letter right there. And I appreciate the context that was provided. Conflicting laws/policies between the city and state made it essentially impossible to maintain adequate visibility of existing signs because trees grow larger over time. Good point.

In reference to comments about land owners should remove "their own" trees or be able to exercise "land owners rights" that is misguided information. The billboards are on private property. The trees are on NCDOT owned/mintained ROW. The issue is the signs on private property are being blocked by trees growing with in the ROW. Adams and other advertisers wanted the right to cut the vegetation in the ROW that blocks the view of their signs on private property.

"It is not just about trees vs. billboards. It is also about the people who were elected to represent North Carolinians selling out to the people with money to contribute to their re-election campaigns."

I wonder how much people who want to save the trees contributed and which politicians sold their votes to people with money who wanted to save trees

Billboards are an absolute eyesore. People who sell advertising space on them are a scourge on humanity. How would we live if there weren't a 14' x 48' notification that there's a Wendy's at Exit 103? Note that this billboard is redundant to a state-supplied highway sign that tells you the same thing. And spare me the crap about the rental income provided to the property owner. The rental rates barely cover the property taxes for a few acres and a lot of property owners wish they had never signed the leases.

"Perhaps Kevin Madrzykowski won't mind if Adams cuts down the trees his yard. Maybe even place a billboard on his front lawn. After all, it's not about the trees, it's about jobs."

This law does not allow random removal of trees on private property in residential neighborhoods.Billboards aren't allowed in residential neighborhoods, so the need to cut trees isn't an issue and therefore neither is the possibility of cutting trees in someone's yard.

If I see a business advertising with Adams Outdoor Advertising I'm going to let them know I will NO LONGER do business with them until they drop the corrupt Adams Outdoor Advertising. Let's hit these corporate cockroaches in they only thing they care about - their pocket books

"Billboards are an absolute eyesore. People who sell advertising space on them are a scourge on humanity." - Did you catch the part about almost 2 million dollars to charity? Someone makes a living in outdoor advertising and they are the scourge of humanity? Jeez I hate to see what you say about criminals or unemployed people.

"Note that this billboard is redundant to a state-supplied highway sign that tells you the same thing."- The businesses pay for those ads on the state supplied signs. The ads on billboards can advertise far more than gas, food and rest. It is private property and people have some right to generate income on their property.

The rental rates barely cover the property taxes for a few acres and a lot of property owners wish they had never signed the leases.- You can't fix stupid. If you have unimproved land and it isn't generating revenue and a sign pays for property taxes that is great. Anyone who signs a lease knows what their income is projected to be since it is stated in the lease. If they aren't happy with the projected income, don't sign the lease. If they decide they aren's happy with the ROI, then they simply don't renewt he lease. Regardless of how profitable or happy property owners are with their leases or profit margins it is irrelevant to the law

I agree that anyone who would spoil God's landscape with chintzy, unnecessary advertising is the basic definition of the scourge of humanity. Even if they donated all of the revenue to charity, it wouldn't make then signs any less obtrusive and obnoxious.

"Another corporate mouthpiece/lobbyist buying votes. This has been the most corrupt NCGA in the state's history."Who is a lobbyist? i read the article. the general manager of Adam's obviously isn't a lobbyist. He is the GENERAL MANAGER. Where did he buy votes? Campaign contributions are public record

"I agree that anyone who would spoil God's landscape with chintzy, unnecessary advertising is the basic definition of the scourge of humanity. Even if they donated all of the revenue to charity, it wouldn't make then signs any less obtrusive and obnoxious."

I'm sorry you think this is the worst thing humanity has to offer. I can only imagine all of the unnecessary things you do or benefit from in your daily life that harm the environment. Bilboards really aren't on my top 10 list of worst things in the world. I'm sure you have your priorities out of whack if you do.

"I agree that anyone who would spoil God's landscape with chintzy, unnecessary advertising is the basic definition of the scourge of humanity. Even if they donated all of the revenue to charity, it wouldn't make then signs any less obtrusive and obnoxious."

I'm sorry you think this is the worst thing humanity has to offer. I can only imagine all of the unnecessary things you do or benefit from in your daily life that harm the environment. Bilboards really aren't on my top 10 list of worst things in the world. I'm sure you have your priorities out of whack if you do.

"If I see a business advertising with Adams Outdoor Advertising I'm going to let them know I will NO LONGER do business with them until they drop the corrupt Adams Outdoor Advertising. Let's hit these corporate cockroaches in they only thing they care about - their pocket books"

- What corruption?- good luck with boycotting every company with a billboard from Adams in the U.S. I'm sure the groundsweel of boycotters will convince them all to stop advertising... LOL

I'm not from this area originally, but when I moved here I was shocked by two things about the highways here: 1) the trash on the side of the road at exits & 2) the number of billboards.

Both of these things show a total lack of regard for nature's beauty. Many states have much more restrictive laws about the number of billboards allowed and the cutting of vegetation. I've never been driving somewhere and wished that there were more billboards, "informing" me of gas prices, cell phone plans, Adam & Eve locations, and stuff about God.

"This industry is morally bankrupt."I'm sure whatever industry you work in is perfect and has been tapped on the shoulder by god... They are signs. People who own property along roads have a reasonable right to make money. It's not really much aof a moal issue. No measurable harm is being done to yo simply because there is advertising along roads. If you don't like it buy all the land along all the roads you drive on or move to a state that outlaws them.

Unless you're from Vermont,where there are no billboards, I don't know where you're from where bollboards are not present. I personally drive on freeways to get from point A to Point B a quickly as I can and could care less that the landscape looks like. If I want casual scenic beauty in 'god's green earth', I'll take a country backroad on a day off when I'm in no hurry. As for the person who will boycott anything seen on a billboard, I take it you will never listen to the radio again, drink a soda or beer, buy a house, get gas, go to a restaurant, buy a car, and let alone, remove yourself from the free enterprise system. Good luck with that.

Where was all these evironmentalist when FDR's Fannie, Carter's & Clintons "Community Reinvestment". The government subsidized deforestation and built sumprime foreclosures out of amazonian rainforest and Haitian lumber.

Just because the guy representing the billboards says it's not about trees vs billboards doesn't make it so. This is very much about trees vs billboards. Most of us would rather have the trees (not to mention the oxygen that they help produce) than a billboard everywhere you look while driving.

most of "us" don't own the land the billboards are on so it kind of doesn'nt matter what "we" want. Most of "us" voted for our state legislature to make the right decisions for our stae and determine the balance between nature and industry. Opinion polls show most of "us" are concerned about the unemployment rate and the struggling economy

Wow, every comment supporting trees and oxygen and natural beauty is quickly responded to and slapped down. Apparently somebody at Adams Outdoor is busy monitoring this website. It doesn't matter how many times you try to shout down the opposition - you overplayed your hand this time and you will pay the price.

I have to agree with the "Anonymous" who says someone is monitoring these comments and immediately responding to anyone who disagrees with Adams' letter. Note how similar all those posts are: they use a direct quote from anyone who disagrees and then they go on to try to discredit what the other person posted.

Billionaire Bruton Smith showed county commissioners what he could a decade ago cutting down all the large trees for his racetrack parking lot just inside the Meck line after he was forbidden to do so. That was hilarious. What did they do? Nothing.

Trees are a total nuisance costly to maintain ruining sidewalks streets and killing innocent drivers.

Time to cut all the thousands of large oak trees down lining all public streets in Charlotte on public land or inside the 5 foot right of way. This is also an instant cure for canker worms.

Start with the trees downtown. Get rid of them all. Say NO to green unless its money.

Got to love the extremists. No room for compromise because they know better than the rest of us. Duke Energy cut down a bunch of trees in my yard to protect their overhead lines. I didn't like it, but understand. There is a need for balance in virtually everything. For the left, however, there is no balance, only their way.

And is there anything more absurd than comparing a lawful outdoor advertiser with genocidal maniacs? Get a grip, people.

"Wow, every comment supporting trees and oxygen and natural beauty is quickly responded to and slapped down. Apparently somebody at Adams Outdoor is busy monitoring this website. It doesn't matter how many times you try to shout down the opposition - you overplayed your hand this time and you will pay the price."--->

I have been making a lot of comments. I don't work for Adams. The manager from Adams stated that they aren't against trees in the OpEd. People including Adams has a right to disagree and respond to comments just as you do.The people overplaying their hand and shouting down their competition are those that are making insulting comments about a company that simply tried to ensure adequate visability of their signs AFTER that company successfully protected their industry. Overplaying one's hand is claiming someone is going to boyctt the thousands of products and businesses that avertise on billboards. Good luck with that one... The comments I have written are factual and based and aren't below the belt by any means. Whwreas the comment I'm respondig to is from a person who is upset about someone responding to comments while not addressing anything in the article or comments directly...

@ March 19, 2012 2:28 PMI don't think your comments about a 5ft ROW eliminating trees on all streets has anything to do with this story and is ridiculous, nevermind sxtremely expensive for taxpayers. Bruton Smith has nothing to do with this. Moreover those that supported this law followed due process to the Nth degree.

"I have to agree with the "Anonymous" who says someone is monitoring these comments and immediately responding to anyone who disagrees with Adams' letter. Note how similar all those posts are: they use a direct quote from anyone who disagrees and then they go on to try to discredit what the other person posted."

There are a lot of anonymous comments. most of the one's being made defending Adams/billboard industry are by me and I don't work for Adams or in advertising. I am just a logical person.If someone from Adams were monitoring the comments and responding what would be wrong about that? If you disagree with the factual basis of a comment anyone makes, you are free to respond with facts or information to refute them. So far I have seen very few such posts and I would assume that is because it is fairly hard to argue facts rather than lob insults of corruption at this company.

That's the biggest bunch of baloney I've ever heard. I've traveled extensively in states that ban billboards or severely restrict them, and the difference is wonderful. Forget the garbage about needing to inform people of services. The small, interstate information signs do that better than billboards already. The issues here are simple: a special interest - led by Adams - has once again bought legislators to do its will, clearly against the will and best interests of the public. I suppose the Observer has an obligation to present opposing points of view, but this is merely providing a propagandist the opportunity to lie about his real motivation - padding his, and his industry's, pockets.

The NCGA - best government and laws that money can buy. If you don't like a law and you have a lot of money, just pay off enough of the General Assembly and get it changed. By the way, I don't believe that you don't work for Adams. You have spent your entire day trying to squash the viewpoints of people who are in opposition to this unconscionable new law.

"That's the biggest bunch of baloney I've ever heard. I've traveled extensively in states that ban billboards or severely restrict them, and the difference is wonderful. Forget the garbage about needing to inform people of services. The small, interstate information signs do that better than billboards already. The issues here are simple: a special interest - led by Adams - has once again bought legislators to do its will, clearly against the will and best interests of the public. I suppose the Observer has an obligation to present opposing points of view, but this is merely providing a propagandist the opportunity to lie about his real motivation - padding his, and his industry's, pockets"

Who cares if people need the information. People have private property rights. You may want to live in a state where the government limits your rights and chokes business. Most North Carolinin's obviously don't and that is why the law won bipartisan support. i would venture to guess most people are more concerned with jobs and the economy right now as opposed to cutting trees around billboards that sit on private property. If you don't like billboards go live in one of those states. This law was not about banning billboard but rather protecting the view of existing billboards. If you are going to claim Adams "bought legislators" then prove it. on the same note, there are people that lobby for environmntal causes but you aren't critizing them or calling it "buying legislators"

"The NCGA - best government and laws that money can buy. If you don't like a law and you have a lot of money, just pay off enough of the General Assembly and get it changed. By the way, I don't believe that you don't work for Adams. You have spent your entire day trying to squash the viewpoints of people who are in opposition to this unconscionable new law."...Believe whatever you want. You spent your day accusing the GA and Adams of corruption and haven't provided ANY evidence. I will point out that you are claiming several hundred people were bought off and seem to be claiming that it is easy. It seems you are claiming to have bought off the general Assembly. Not only do I not believe tha you can, but if it is true then you are not one to crticize anyone else that you allegege has done so.

Adams is saying what they must. They have paid much to grease the hands in Raliegh. It is all about the RIO. But, no one really believes that billboards are better than trees. No one is that ignorant. We need trees for survival. I have never needed a billboard for anything.

Environmental causes benefit all of us. Trees turning carbon dioxide into oxygen benefit all of us. Seeing natural beauty instead of ugly billboards benefits all of us. Cutting down trees so that billboard companies can sell more advertising only benefits the billboard companies. If you really believe that there weren't large campaign contributions and that your representatives in state (and federal) government don't listen a little more closely to the people and companies who make them, you are either extremely naive or not very bright.

Your posts are very transparent. I'm sure your boss at Adams will be very proud of the work you did today.

"Environmental causes benefit all of us. Trees turning carbon dioxide into oxygen benefit all of us."- Jobs benefit all of us. Income benefits property owners. Income benefits advertisers.Property rights benefit property owners.The main issue is that property owners shouldn't be subject to your wil simply becasue you believe what is best for their property. There has to be a balance no one is advocating for removal of every tree in NC. As the GM from Adams pointed out. the trees grew into the view of the signs over time. This simply allows cutting of trees around the signs it also over-rides ambiguous conflicting municipakla nd state codes that stopped the companies from removing overgrowth in the first place.

"Seeing natural beauty instead of ugly billboards benefits all of us."- Not to advertisers, billboard leasing companies, private property owners who lease space, it isn't a God-given right with regards to other people's property.

Cutting down trees so that billboard companies can sell more advertising only benefits the billboard companies. - No it doesn't. It benefits the property owners who generate income from THEIR property

If you really believe that there weren't large campaign contributions and that your representatives in state (and federal) government don't listen a little more closely to the people and companies who make them, you are either extremely naive or not very bright."- Large campaign contributions are not "buying legislators" and it would be miseading for you to propose that environmental groups do not do the same thing or have the same opportunities. What you have not established is who took money, from whom, and how much.

Your posts are very transparent. I'm sure your boss at Adams will be very proud of the work you did today.- I'm glad my posts are transparent. I like facts and allegations supported by facts. I don't work for Adams and again you make accusations without proof

Sometimes what is good for a small minority is contrary to what is good for the large majority. The trees that will be cut are growing on public right of way. That means they belong to all of us and I don't want my trees cut down. Nobody in this country is guaranteed the right to do whatever they want as long as it is making money for somebody.

Billboards are not a necessary industry and they support very few jobs. There are many other sources of advertising information that do not create blight.

I don't really give a rat's arse about billboard companies. In this day and age they're going out of style because A. they look bad and B. there are other more direct methods of marketing to consumers. I've never made any purchase as a result of a billboard ad. I have however, NOT made purchases because of them.

It's not the government's job to save a business that is becoming less relevant as the world changes. NC sold out completely on this one, and it's disgusting.

During the past 5 years, 2007-2011, there were 2,749 accidents in Mecklenburg County in which vehicles ran off the road and hit trees. 1,038 people were injured and 53 people died when they hit trees. I have heard extremist environmentalists assert that trees have more of a right to live than people. That is offensive.

The hysteria about the number of trees this new law would obliterate is just that - hysteria. There are way too many people who use hysteria as evidence that their position is the right one. Many of them are those that take the liberal view of things (not all, but many) - such as thehysterical reports that human activity, and ONLY human activity - has warmed the planet to the point that all life will be destroyed in just a few years. If you watch the National Geographic and NatGeo Wild channels long enough, you will believe every spiecies of plant and animal on planet Earth is on the verge of extinction because of evil humans. Hysterical people living on the ocean scream bloody murder that if they step out on their deck and look on the ocean, and are able to see an oil rig 40 miles off the coast, their quality of life will be completely, thoroughly and utterly destroyed forever. (Of course, there are also consevative people who think that unless all federal, state and local governments enact legislation that makes their moral views the law of the land, the Earth will spontaneously combust or otherwise be completely destroyed by whatever diety they believe in and want to force everyone else to believe in.)

And if you listen to the hysterical people locally, you will believe that within a few months, you will be able to count the trees in the city of Charlotte on your fingers and toes, and that billboards on highways completely destroy quality of life. You're exaggerating. For example - in the 24 years I have lived here, I long ago lost count of how many times I have traveled I-85 between here and Greensboro. I have no idea how many billboards are on that stretch of road, and I cannot remember the content of any of them. If any of you that are talking about how evil billboards are were pressed to answer those same questions, you would not be able to answer them either.

Charlotte has plenty of trees, and if you're busy looking for and counting billboards on the highways, put your eyes back on the road in front of you where they belong.

And the world had plenty of Passenger Pigeons and Dodo birds until they were all gone. We were not put on this planet to strip it of everything of value and leave charred wreckage for future generations.

I doubt many billboards were put up yesterday - the entire staff of Adams was on here.

Sometimes what is good for a small minority is contrary to what is good for the large majority. --Property tax revenue from these signs is good for everyone

The trees that will be cut are growing on public right of way. That means they belong to all of us and I don't want my trees cut down. The majority of peopel don't agree according to the state delegation that represents them.

Nobody in this country is guaranteed the right to do whatever they want as long as it is making money for somebody.-- No but the state has the right to make that decision and they did. These sign owners pay property tax on their land and signs. They have reasonable expectation to have their signs seen if they are being taxed on them.

Billboards are not a necessary industry --There a re a lot of unnecessary industries. They have a right to exist. This law was not passed and they support very few jobs. -- Proof please? Advertising results in plenty of jobs, from sign companies, printing, graphic art, and sales revenue advertisers gain from increased sales.

There are many other sources of advertising information that do not create blight.-- fell freee to use them State and local law allows for billboards

"And the world had plenty of Passenger Pigeons and Dodo birds until they were all gone. We were not put on this planet to strip it of everything of value and leave charred wreckage for future generations."-- this law does not allow for clearcutting of forest on public or provate land. It simply allows for an area to be cleared immediately around the sign. There is no riight or ability for this law to strip the earth of all of its resources. ...Par for the course for extremists to exaggerate.

I doubt many billboards were put up yesterday - the entire staff of Adams was on here.

"I doubt many billboards were put up yesterday - the entire staff of Adams was on here."- so wht if they were. they don't have a right to have an opinion? If they weren't putting up billboards isn't that what you want?

I don't really give a rat's arse about billboard companies. -- Well, advertisers do and luckily our stat delegation does as well.

In this day and age they're going out of style because A. they look bad and B. there are other more direct methods of marketing to consumers. -- Oh well. it doesn't matter what you think. There are billboards regardless of your opinion. I also don't know what marketing education you have that you determined that bllboards are no longer effective means of advertising. Also the more conventional approach to advertising is visibility and how many consumers you can hit. Every product or service is unique and one canot unillaterally say billboards aren't the best media for all products and services. Furthermore a good advertiser is going to use multiple forms of advertising to attract customers. So thy will use the web, TV and billboards... Hey you leared something...

I've never made any purchase as a result of a billboard ad. I have however, NOT made purchases because of them. -- Sure... I'm sure you are completely immune to the effects of advertising... So when gas is averaging $3.75 and you are in south Carolina and see a billbard advertising $3.00 you go out of your way to go to another station that charges more.... sure. I bet every major oil compnay and fast food restaurant has signs. So we are supposed to believe you have never purchased fast food or gas from a major oil company... LOL

It's not the government's job to save a business that is becoming less relevant as the world changes. - It is the government's job to ensure that business can flourish and isn't unneccessarily hindered. The issue at hand is not about picking favorites or supporting a dying industry. it is about providing the access to the medium of existing signage for which thoes people pay property tax for the signs. You also haven't provided any evidence that the signs are a dying industry.

NC sold out completely on this one, and it's disgusting.-- No they didn't. This is an existing industry and the state simply allowed for brush removal under the existing signs.

Talk about exaggeration to make a point - removal of brush under existing signs? If it was just brush under existing signs then it wouldn't need removal. No, we are talking about mature trees that turn carbon dioxide into oxygen and help hide the eyesores that billboards are.

Again, nobody in this country has the right to do anything they want just because it makes them money or brings tax revenue to the state. That type of logic caused Wall Street to think they could do anything they wanted which resulted in the financial crisis and recession that we are struggling to crawl out of.

I guess then that I have the right to make meth at my house. Never mind that it turns addicts into mindless zombies and that the lab could blow up and flatten my neighbors' houses. It makes money for me so it must be okay.

Anonymous comments are pointless. Change your format, Observer, and use Facebook to post commments, or at least a service that demands the identity of a real person. Maybe a little light upon the radicals' faces on either side of the aisle will wisen up the commentary a little bit.

"Billboards aren't allowed in residential neighborhoods, so the need to cut trees isn't an issue"

In Charlotte, along Independence and other freeways, there are billboards very close to residential areas and it is most definitely an issue when trees which were designed to lessen the highway noise are on the list for cutting.

Also -- how much property tax do these signs generate? And is there a requirement that the trees be replaced with something low-growing that, planted densely, could provide some of the health benefits of the trees?

I think it's about time the billboard industry changed with the times like everyone else. Today's environment for advertising is vastly different than the days when billboards were readily accepted. They are not "green". In fact, cutting trees for billboards is the opposite. Perhaps the billboard industry needs quit spending money on lobbyists and direct their funds towards improving and adapting their product to today's world and environment.

How will turning the Charlotte area into a blighted, billboard-infested, sprawling mess make the area more inviting to companies seeking to relocate here and bringing with them thousands of high-paying jobs?

Hi,In business for over 16 years, partner one is a national full service marketing firm with a proven track record for success. Partner One offers what no other ad agency offers: to pay for many of its clients’ advertising costs and to guarantee that its clients’ revenues will increase.

While our attention has been drawn to the issue of billboard companies cutting down our trees, the State itself has been busy clearing away the ribbons of trees that have lined HWY 74 from Rutherford County all the way to Charlotte. They are cutting back to the chain link fence, removing all trees and any vegetation that may block the view and noise of the highway from the homes along the way. Folks in many places it's not a pretty sight. I'm not talking about trees that may have blocked the view of oncoming traffic at intersections, I talking about trees on long stretches that for years have been part of our beautiful scenery. Visitors to our state are now treated to the much less beautiful backyards & back sides of homes as well as bare banks & jagged roots. Why are they doing this? My suggestion is this - since the state has already obliterated the trees, why not have the sign companies apply to place the billboard on state property? If placed against the ugly chain fences they will be far enough from the road to cause no trouble & there will definitely be no trees to obstruct the view. Frankly, it's my opinion that any & all billboards can be placed high enough that no tree will ever interfere with their message. This can be proved any night you travel down 85 looking for some fast food.

SB 183 is simply bad legislation. Supposedly it is a "compromise" although the Billboard Industry is said to have helped our state legislators write this bill. I have decided to vote against any of my representatives who voted for it. That is about all I can do. Good job lobbyists. Doesn't seem to matter who we send to Raleigh, Democrat or Republican, they are all whores.

For the record, my employees have said that I am to the right of Genghis Khan and vote "R" most of the time. I would like to point out a few things you may not know.Number 1 many of the signs that are obscured are non-conforming stacked signs that were put up behind trees to begin with. Trees used to mysteriously disappear in front of these signs and DOT quit allowing them to be put up behind trees. Many sign company personnel have been arrested and have been prosecuted in the past for what has now been made legal by SB183. Non-conforming is another way of saying that the NCDOT would not allow them to be put up that way again. They are too tall, or too large. Giving them a view should be illegal since they are illegal signs.Number 2 BB companies have to give up some free public service advertising. They do this in the worst spots.Number 3 Property owners were paid for their land, there was no stipulation that they control the R/W adjacent to their land or that they have a right to a view to their property. Often times the public does not want to see their junk yard, tin building, or pollution on a stick billboard. Number 4 Money to Legislators is a good investment, look at what they accomplished. Give the politicians 250K and cut down $15 Million dollars worth of trees.Number 5 By increasing the viewing time BB companies can use electronic images and get twice the return. The ODA had electronic BB's in the original bill but narrowly got shot down for the time being. That's next. Number 6 Who needs BB's when you have Droids, I-Phones, Apps, GPS.We never use BB's anymore.Number 7 BB's stimulate the economy, that's BS.Number 8 The boards have paid for themselves and should be amortized out of existence. From a business standpoint North Carolina would be better off without billboards.

About this blog

The Observer's editorial board cares deeply about Charlotte and the Carolinas, and has a problem with public officials who have forgotten that they report to citizens. Editorial page editor Taylor Batten and associate editors Peter St. Onge and Eric Frazier tackle politics and public policy issues locally, across the state and nation. Kevin Siers tackles those issues too in cartoons. Read their columns and biographical information on the CharlotteObserver.com Opinion page.